Reference no: EM131451177

Question: Jones v. Robinson Property Group, L.P., d/b/a Horseshoe Casino & Hotel 427 F.3d 987 (5th Cir. 2005)

A better-than-average black poker dealer with a good deal of experience sued a casino for refusing to hire him over an eight-year period, alleging it was only because of his race. Based on the facts, the court agreed.

Stewart, J.

Ralph Jones is an African-American male living in Tunica County, Mississippi. He is a certified poker dealer who has worked in various casinos as a poker dealer and in other capacities. He has also dealt in several major poker tournaments, including the World Poker Open held at the Horseshoe Casino. It is undisputed that Jones is a well qualified poker dealer, whose dealing skills are better than the average poker dealer in Tunica County, Mississippi. Robinson Property Group (RPG) first opened the Horseshoe Casino and Hotel in Tunica, Mississippi, in 1995. Ken Lambert has served as the poker room manager at the Horseshoe since that time. Jones alleges that he has repeatedly sought and been refused a position with RPG. Jones first applied for a position at Horseshoe in late 1994, before the casino opened.

In May 1995, Jones applied for a poker floor person and a poker dealer position at Horseshoe. Jones was not hired for either position. Two weeks later, Jones complained to Anna West, Horseshoe's Director of Human Resources, that his non-hiring was due to racism. Jones asked her whether the casino had a problem with hiring blacks as poker dealers because he observed that there were no African-Americans working at the Horseshoe as poker dealers at that time. Lambert was summoned to respond to Jones' question. Lambert responded to Jones' complaint by stating that there were no qualified AfricanAmerican poker dealers in Tunica County. Jones informed him that there were at least five qualified AfricanAmericans in the area, including himself. Lambert testified that he became indignant at Jones' accusation, and he felt "misjudged" and "embarrassed." He claims that he nonetheless offered Jones a position as a poker dealer again. When Jones refused and he persisted in his racial allegations, Lambert testified that his feelings became hurt and he ended the conversation. Jones denies that he was offered a position as a poker dealer.

Between 1995 and 2002, Jones submitted applications for a poker dealer position no less than 10 times. Horseshoe has employed Jones in other departments and on a temporary basis as a poker dealer during high profile poker tournaments; however, Jones has never been hired by Horseshoe on a permanent basis. The record reveals that during the relevant time period the Horseshoe was hiring poker dealers for permanent positions. The Horseshoe generally employs a staff of 40-45 poker dealers. *** Under Title VII, an employer cannot "fail or refuse R to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race[.]" An employee can prove discrimination through direct or circumstantial evidence. If an employee presents credible direct evidence that discriminatory animus at least in part motivated, or was a substantial factor in the adverse employment action, then it becomes the employer's burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the same decision would have been made regardless of the discriminatory animus.

We have previously held that "statements or documents which show on its face that an improper criterion served as a basis-not necessarily the sole basis, but a basis-for the adverse employment action are direct evidence of discrimination." When a person or persons with decision making authority evinces [sic] racial animus that may constitute direct evidence of discrimination. [sic] ("This court has implied that calling an employee a ‘nigger' would be direct evidence of race discrimination.") We have also previously observed that racial epithets undoubtably demonstrate racial animus. *** . . .Upon extensive review of the parties' arguments and the record in this case, we find that Jones has demonstrated direct evidence of discrimination. Mims [a poker dealer and part-time supervisor] stated that she inquired why an African-American poker dealer was not hired and was told, by either Lambert or his assistant, that "they hired who they wanted to hire and there [sic] were not going to hire a black person unless there were extenuating circumstances." She was then told by Lambert, or his assistant, that "good old white boys don't want blacks touching their cards in their face."

Sam Thomas [a former Horseshoe employee] testified that in 1995, that Lambert told him that "maybe I've been told not to hire too many blacks in the poker room." It is incontrovertible that Lambert made the hiring decisions at Horseshoe and Presley as his assistant would have provided input, therefore, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Jones, the aforementioned evidence proves, without inference or presumption, that race was a basis in employment decisions in the poker room at Horseshoe. The evidence need not show that race was the sole basis in order to constitute direct evidence. . . . Mims' and Thomas' testimony clearly and explicitly indicates that decision maker(s) in the poker room used race as a factor in employment decisions, which is by definition direct evidence of discrimination. Thus, we find that Jones has presented direct evidence of discrimination and accordingly, he has established a prima facie case of discrimination. The district court erred in granting summary judgment for RPG. We thus REVERSE and REMAND this case back to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion

1. Are you surprised that this is a 2005 case? Explain.

2. Given the evidence, do you understand why the lower court would have found that no race discrimination had taken place? Explain.

3. What do you think of the statements that management allegedly made? Do they seem like appropriate bases for making workplace decisions? Explain.